“I have come to realize that aiming for community is a bit like aiming for happiness. It’s not a goal in itself. we find happiness as an incidental by-product of pursuing love, justice, hospitality, and generosity. When you aim for happiness, you are bound to miss it. Likewise with community. It’s not our goal. It emerges as a by-product of pursuing something else. Those who love community destroy it, but those who love people build community.” - Michael Frost, Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture
I agree — sort of. The community is drawn together in authentic love and honesty when they, together, pursue the mission of God. It’s like the community that formed in The Wizard of Oz or the Lord of the Rings trilogy: unlikely people are brought together by engaging in a mission larger than themselves.
And yet . . . true community is itself the goal. Or at least a taste of the goal. God is seeking to bring all things together again — think “new creation” and “reconciliation” — and that means that community will break out.
But this community can be spoiled if it turns in on itself, forgetting that the work of God continues.
- - - -
CBS hoped there would be Katie Couric fans who would follow her to CBS. Diane and I have done just that. From Brokaw to Couric. Last night we got to see Jim Wallis talk about how many evangelicals are taking seriously the challenge to be “completely pro-life” (to quote Ron Sider). He kept resisting efforts to pin him as a person on the right or left, insisting that it isn’t about being a Republican or a Democrat but about being a Christ-follower who goes deeper in the call of the kingdom. When he said he thought he was something of a moderate, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said that the only thing in the middle of the road is dead cats and smelly skunks. That added so much to the segment.
- - - -
Sorry I haven’t been very involved in comments the last few days. Just haven’t had time to keep up. Thanks for the discussions, though. Page loads have bumped up a bit the last couple weeks. Don’t know what that means in terms of actual people — but thanks.
We shouldn’t have to try and create community. It should just happen. Unfortunately the forms we have adopted often preclude community. We need it. What is the best way to achieve it and how do you do it without going after it? I don’t know.
Mike-
When Jesus prayed for us in John 17:20-23, it was all about community, wasn’t it? The unity, the one-ness he prays for has largely eluded us at times because we mistake “same-ness” for “one-ness”. I think striving for community is valid, striving for “same-ness” is destructive and doomed to prejudice. In this regard, I really think “one-ness” has to do with my attitudes toward others –even those who are different than myself, and the way I treat them. I am called to be one in Christ with those also owned by Him, no matter our differences. The older I get, the more I love community with others who love Jesus, and the more I find it a boost to my spirit and my walk with the Lord. I disagree with Frost where community is concerned, because our relationships with each other are vital to our relationship with God. We only need to look at Christ’s teaching on “leaving your gift at the altar” to start seeing that. I know I’ve typed these words before on your pages, but here it is again: We can’t really expect to welcome the SPIRIT of Jesus into our souls to commune with him while holding the BODY of Jesus at arm’s length (or farther).
Thanks again, MIke.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with Paul (comment 1). Relationships don´t just happen, they take work. Community doesn´t just happen, it takes work. I think it´s somewhere engrained in our human/sin nature to think about self and not community. It seems as though the things worth doing require effort and sacrifice. So I agree with the quote and Mike´s commentary– community is something we work towards, through means of love, charity, hospitality, etc… Then community happens.
Thanks Mike. Peterson has some great comments on community in Living the Resurrection. I can’t vividly recall them now- but the gist of one idea was that we’ve worked so hard to be professionals in life we feel we don’t need community anymore - we just need other professionals to come and do their thing for us in whatever capacity that might be.
I feel the same way Jim Wallis does in regards to being “moderate”. Some of my Christ following convictions lead me towards the the right, others lead me more towards the left. Unfortunately, in our political system in the US, there is very little voice or political “power” for those in the middle. I hope that my generation of Christ followers might change that. Because sometimes I just want to say fooey to all politics because of this disconnect.
Exiles is sitting on my coffee table waiting to be read. Frost is such a great thinker when it comes to missional ecclesiology, and after The Shaping of Things to Come, he can do little wrong in my eyes…
I think I get what he’s saying here, Mike. I think he’s reacting against the current move by many churches to “create community.” Churches do this by many means, and the implication is community for community’s sake.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Whoever loves community destroys community.” When anything – be it community, “church work,” youth activities, whatever – takes precedence over centering one’s life around the life and mission of Jesus, there’s a disconnect.
True Christian community happens (and yes, I do agree with Paul that it “happens” regardless of our good intentions…though it takes work to maintain at times) when people centering their lives around the life and mission of Jesus find each other and journey together. Each person is hearing from the Lord, and the community is there to help discern what they are hearing. It’s Ephesians 4, where “each part does its work” so that the body is built up. The body cannot be built unless this is so.
In short, don’t strive for community. Strive to become more centered on the life and mission of Jesus, and you’ll find others who are doing the same. I’ve seen this happen first-hand, and it’s beautiful.
When you pray for the Spirit to lead you, you have to be open to all that will happen and where you will be taken. If you find yourself in an uncomfortable position, you turn it over to the Spirit and yield to the will of Christ and not your own.
Many years ago I attended a church where the pastor used the word “community” over and over and over. It was the latest buzz word, however it worked about as well as “fellowship” or “ecclesia” or any other word that describes what the church is supposed to look like. This was one of those churches that was a hybrid of Willow Creek and Saddleback. The back door of this church was, and probably still is, about three times as wide as the front door.
I find it interesting that in the TNIV, “community” is only used one time in the NT. This is a reference to the Jewish community. “Fellowship” is used 9 times. I understand that the Greek word, “koinonia,” can be translated either “fellowship” or “community.” Words can loose their meaning when used over and over again unless there is a visual connection.
The question that may take as closer to authentic community, “What does it mean to be the “body” of Christ? As communion paints a picture, so does community when we really understand what it means to be the body of Christ.
I definitely agree with Chris Field with one exception: I don’t think Wallis is particularly moderate. I appreciate his criticism of the right. But his ensuing turn to the left is equally disappointing.
He critisizes the right’s church voting guides (rightfully so, parden the pun), then publishes his own with distinctively left idealogy.
I read the Sojourners literature and, to some extent, appreciate it. But it often does exactly what it professes to oppose: waxes difinitive with regards to political/cultural/moral issues. I don’t know if that’s fair (or balance, for that matter).
Just kidding, I don’t watch Fox News.
amen, NashvilleMan -
I agree wholeheartedly. The answer to the “religious right” is certainly not the “religious left.” This is where Christians can offer a refreshing voice that does not lean as heavily on man-made political systems (wow — I sounded really conservative just now…my parents would be ashamed…), but claims its citizenship in the kingdom of God. This is why I have become decidedly more “apolitical” in recent months, giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s but not waving a flag for either side. In my opinion, the whole machine is broken and shouldn’t be trusted (how anarchist of me…).
I’m not sure the answer to “Republichristianity” is a Christian left-wing lobbyist group — which is what Sojourner’s has largely become — but Christians standing in peaceful opposition to the power games and systems of governments.
Does what I just said make me an Anabaptist?
Welcome to the team, Steve!
I think where colossians talks about being “knit together in love” thats part of community. Being part of a community is hard work.
It requires something.
Mike -
It seems to me that we should have “community” and work to maintain it in a healthy way, but fashioned as if a “family,” which it seems to me to truly be in the context of the New Testament. No?
In the 60s we had “communes” and we (some of us can) remember how radical those were with diverse groups of people of all ages going off together to “commune” or whatever they did. (As Stephen Wright recently said, in the 60s they took drugs to escape the world and now people take Prozac to feel “normal,” whatever THAT has to say about our society!)
It seems to me, anyway, and I’ve been saying this for a long time, people are looking for and longing for community/family/fellowship as a place they can fit in, be accepted and belong. Where more than in the Lord’s church - the “called out” - do we need that kind of warm-hearted, loving group of God’s people of all kinds with the common thread of love of God as our Father.
To look at it in a different way, don’t you think blogging offers a type of Christian community? Just a couple of days ago in my blog post I gave people the chance to comment on “blogging and ministry” for a couple of your young fellow ministers who call themselves the Theobloggers who are gathering information for a lecture on the topic. The responses were very interesting, including one by John Dobbs, the minister in Pascagoula who’s written so many good posts (Out Here Hope Remains) about their work since Katrina.
John said that while he thinks blogging is an excellent discipline and good ministry, community building work, many preachers must remain silent on their true beliefs because of their congregations. I know this is true, but it seems very sad to me. Very sad.
Without community we are left all alone. How can we be a Christian all alone?
Let me clarify one thing: I don’t really konw much of anything about Jim Wallis’ political beliefs. I was just noting his saying that he was moderate. I never intended to align myself with his specific poltical choices if he is not actually moderate.
Cheers.
I like that team, too, Steve. Amazingly, it’s the playbook of much of our heritage.
Many of the people who have encouraged me to be open to the kingdom values of justice, hospitality, and compassion — people like Campolo — have insisted that they aren’t interested in a “Christian left.” They’re interested in being fully devoted followers of Christ — people who take the Sermon on the Mount seriously — wherever that takes them. At time we might recognize that as right and at times as left.
I’m not quite as convinced as you are that government can never be helpful. Run for mayor of Dallas, Larry!
You’re right, Mike. Campolo stands out as one who has identified with kingdom values over the values of a particular side of the aisle.
I’m not saying that government can never be helpful, but that it must be put in its proper place (for Christians). I meant to add to my previous comment that Christians still have a responsibility to cry out for justice on behalf of those who are powerless, and many times this means petitioning those who hold the power. I’m not very good at this, but I know lots of people who are, so I usually defer to them. I’m better at living out the kingdom values of Jesus on the ground level in a rather quiet manner. (though I do add my name to a petition now and again to help enslaved kids in Uganda, war-torn Rwanda, or other similar causes…)
I’m having a heckuva time deciding whether or not I should vote in the coming mid-term election here in Massachusetts. I really like one of the candidates and am enamored of the idea that we could have an African-American governor, but I’m not sure how far to take these recent Anabaptist leanings I’ve held recently. “Community” discernment would be much appreciated…
And I would support a Larry James candidacy for Dallas mayor … no doubt about that …
Mr. Campolo may not “offically” come out to one side or another but it sure doesn’t take rocket science to figure out which party he is against and which he is for.
I find it interesting that so many folks are afraid to sound like a conservative or a liberal. This speaks to how deep Christians are in the political mire. I can understand that many are referring to the far right or the far left. Why do we feel like every time someone says something, we need to label them? Maybe we are afraid to have community with someone who is on the opposite side of the politcal spectrum.
Instead of “positioning” ourselves in a way that makes us sound like we are against or for the Red Letter Christians, Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Sojourners, Democrats for Life, Tony Perkins, Tony Campolo, James Dobson, Jim Wallis or any group or person that aligns themselves with a political side, even though they say they don’t, why can’t we “preach Christ and him crucified.” In other words, I feel sometimes like both sides think that the government has solutions to the problems. The solution is still the same. By thinking that government has the solution, we set ourselves up. Petition the government for what you think ought to be done, but don’t rely on them to do it or think for one minute that the motives are pure. Eliminate what politicians are paid and all the money they get from lobbying groups, and the need to align them selves with other politicians, and then it may be possible to say that their motivaton was authentic.
It is so very easy to “get sucked in” by individuals who are in power in every facet of life. Even groups like Sojourners or Focus on the Family can have a greater influence on us than the kingdom of God. I am not saying don’t vote or get involved in politics. I’m saying that politics divides — period. How many times have you heard people say, “I hate church politics.” Why? Because it divides.
If anyone has read this you probably think I am one naive dude that has no idea what he is talking about. You are probably right!
David, with a quote like this “By thinking that government has the solution, we set ourselves up. Petition the government for what you think ought to be done, but don’t rely on them to do it or think for one minute that the motives are pure.” I don’t think you are naive at all. Very good.
I second that comment Tim–and all that David said.
And, regarding government, what a world this would be if we and our governing entities were more like Nathanael. “…in whom there is no guile.”
Well - it is an election year - we’ll take our blue or redcoats off in a few weeks - and just be Christians again for two more years
I think it gets tiresome when everyone tries to overly analyze things.
On another note I heard Rush say that there are not many books on Great Moderates of American History.
If gall bladder surgery had been available in Nathanael’s day, he would have been an Israelite in whom there is no gall!
*chuckle*
Chris:
Exposing the fact that you ever let your radio tuner drift onto the EIB network for more than a picosecond, and doing it on the comments section of Mike’s blog, is like painting yourself with warm herring guts and jumping into a pool full of rabid penguins coming off a three-day hunger strike.
I pity you in an admiring sort of way. From a distance, that is.
qb
“…painting yourself with warm herring guts and jumping into a pool full of rabid penguins coming off a three-day hunger strike.”
Crazy left-wing, pinko-Commie penguins …
i wonder if the apostle Paul was far right and far left?
I’ve seen all the comments about Rush, started listening to hear what he had to say. Found out he runs sound bites of the person he is commenting about and the person really does say those crazy things. So he isn’t saying what the person said, he lets them say it themselves. Sounds pretty good to me.
Terry-
If I picked bits and pieces of conversation and played them between my commentary, I could make anyone look stupid (or crazy, or incompassionate, or far left, or far right, etc. etc.)
The fact that “he runs sound bites of the person he is commenting about” is not a plus for him in my opinion.
As an example, I got this from your single comment:
“I’ve…seen…Rush. He…runs…about…crazy. He…isn’t…good.”
Not quite what you said in the first place.
Terry: Yes! Rush is totally trustworthy! He’s our man! And he’s God’s man, too! And he only plays the words of the people themselves–without all of that stupid context that just distracts people….
Like I think it’s great that the Bible says “Thou shalt […] commit adultery” and Paul says we “shall sin that grace may abound!” Now THAT’S cool–and the Bible says it itself! CRAZY!
I am a bit bothered by the fact that you said “Rush […] really does say those crazy things. […] He isn’t saying what the person said […].”
Sounds like maybe you’re not a true believer. But don’t worry: Rush loves everybody and I’m sure he’s willing to forgive… Just like Jesus!
Keep listening Terry. Rush tells his new listeners that it takes 6 weeks to understand his humor. Most liberals and moderates drop out after 6 minutes and dismiss his humor as radical arrogance. The ones that stay after 6 weeks are hooked. The ironic thing is that Rush has built a community of 20 million that consist of conservatives and liberals that all recognize the truth when it is honestly presented. I challenge anyone to listen for 6 weeks and tell me that I’m wrong about Rush. Don’t bother snapping back with a snide remark. Rush explains why you do that.
“Don’t bother snapping back with a snide remark. Rush explains why you do that.”
Rush the pyschologist at it again. The guy can really do just about everything.
Now, boys, tsk tsk tsk.
The speeches of Chavez and Ahmadinejad sounds just like a Democrat if you think about it.
Chris,
I can tell that you’ve never listened to Rush. However, you are unwilling to expand your community to include him. I appeal to you, as a brother in Christ, to include us all in your community. You are playing the part of a “drive by blogger.” You fire off comments, indiscriminately hitting those who infringe on your turf. Stop. Put it in park, and defend your position.
I’m willing to step out of my comfort zone and issue another challenge. If you will listen to Rush for 6 weeks, I will say no to eating anything with a face for the same period. What do you say?
Troy, you must be addressing Chris Field. I NEVER miss Rush if I can help it. In fact I have 24/7
For me, the best thing about Rush is that he always protects his listeners from the awkwardness caused by a lot of facts (which, as one of my friends says all the time, clearly have a liberal bias).
His great public service is that he helps people know what to think. I love him (and I’ve been a satisfied listener since before Rush had cheated on his first 2 wives, before his 3 divorces, and before he was addicted to Oxycontin and getting his housekeeper to acquire illegal prescriptions for him). He’s a role model.
When true community is the goal, then we have something to offer the US culture where true community does not exist.
Troy -
I actually have listened to Rush before. I used to do quite a bit of driving and I have listened to his show probably 10 or 15 separate times. I’m not exactly sure of the “drive by blogging” that you speak of but my two references on the the Rush Limbaugh subject had very little do with Rush Limbaugh himself.
I was first addressing the humor of Terry’s saying that Rush “uses sound bites from people”. I don’t like when anyone does that and I was just pointing out that that can be a bad thing. If you can tell, my comment to her is somewhat tongue in cheek.
In reference to your post, I just thought it was funny that you defend Rush Limbaugh and then say “don’t snap back. Rush explains why you do that.” Think about it. It’s just sort of a funny thing to say. Sort of like “my dad can beat up your dad.”
I wish I could take you up on your challenge but with law school and a wife and a budding golf hobby and 25 miles/running a week, I really just don’t have the time right now.
Trust this though: I do not hate Rush Limbaugh or the far right. Not my cup of tea most of the time, but not worth my getting upset about either. Thus my hearing his show so many times.
Oh, and I forgot the most important part. I never meant to hurt you or anyone else’s feelings. I enjoy all the different people and opinions and am glad that everyone is not just like me. Love you, bro, blessings.
77, you need to take it down a notch. I understand what you’re trying to do, I think, but I’m not sure how useful it is. Yes, your satire points out that people keep collapsing down into political discussions which seem more about their own biases and preferences than about the original topics. And yes, it’s clear that there’s been some faulty logic and poor argument displayed here (on all sides).
But could we please get off the political train for a while and get back to working to have the mind of Christ? I understand that you’re frustrated with how easy it is to bait people into a political argument while it seems much harder to keep people on the challenging work of considering how to handle wealth, poverty, community, and the gospel.
But let’s not let anyone lose sight of what we’re really supposed to be talking about here. Jesus is no democrat, and he’s no republican. He’s not liberal or conservative. He’s not a capitalist or a socialist. He loves Rush and he loves Michael Moore–and he wants both of them to serve and follow him. He wants to bring everyone together–and he has done this already (though it hasn’t finished yet). But every knee will bow.
Troy — that also rules out Funny Face pancakes from IHOP.
Deana,
At our IHOP the Funny Face pancake would probably have a cigarette in it’s mouth like everyone else. We had to stop going there.
Chris,
I was referring to Chris Field. Right on. Right on. Right on.
Chris Field,
Thanks Brother. Rush does not need defending. He does not say anything without proof and does not edit sound bites to make his points. Like I said, to understand Rush, you have to listen for 6 weeks straight. My other point was exactly what Rush does on his show, which is to tell you that he knows liberals better than they know themselves. You don’t have to be a psyschologist to do that. You simply have to know know the liberals play book. It’s a short read.
My overall point is that your sources for information, the mainstream media, are not accountable to anyone. They quote each other, and call it breaking news. I call it broken news.
As far as the challenge goes, I was hoping that you would say no. Six weeks without fajitas. I’d rather take a sharp stick to the eye.
Seriously, we have the same hopes and dreams. Just different paths to achieve them. Does that qualify as community? Blessings
77-
Please reread what I said. Not that Rush said crazy things, but the people themselves say the crazy things and then we hear in entirety the speech.
Treading lightly here….there are few reasons I listen to Rush
1. I have been since 1990. It’s a habit
2. He challenges my thinking since I don’t agree with everything he says.
3. He is funny
4. Most of all - he tells you things and points out things you would never hear on the network news, CNN or Fox for that matter.
Anyway, that is my two cents..go back to debating.
Rush Limbaugh promoted on my blog.
The eschaton must be near.
At this rate, we can only hope so, Mike…
Certainly sorry I even typed Rush two days ago — and I thought we were talking about Terry Rush! - now there’s someone to talk about. Rush Limbaugh seems to be a miserably unhappy person to me. Numerous failed marriages, weekend jet-set trips with a full bottle of Viagra - he certainly needs prayer - as do we all.
Katie Couric was promoted here, so why not Rush? Katie is as liberal as Rush is conservative.
Regarding Couric, one observer noted: “Katie Couric is the perfect fit for a newtwork that condones fabricating news to fit their agenda.”
Ann Coulter was right when she referred to Couric as the “affable Eva Braun of morning TV…she hides behind her Girl Scout persona in order to systematically promote a left-wing agenda.”
Well, if Ann Coulter said it - it must be true. Let’s just hope we don’t see churches implementing Ann’s evangelism methods - you know, shoot all the radicals and force everyone else to be Christian by gunpoint.
…and let’s hope we don’t take up Katies causes of joining in Pro-Life marches and helping to set up legal defense funds for Andrea Yates.
JM, I thought the same thing when Mike posted that about Rush. It’s quite funny how people would blast Rush then go on to praise people like Rather, Couric, NPR and the like as if they can do no wrong either.
Sorry…that was supposed to be that Katie joins in Pro- CHOICE marches. Brain going too fast once again.
Rush scares me. As does Ann Coultor. And FOX news. Ever notice that folks that regularly listen to these folks and this network are adamant about only listening to them. It’s like if they listen to another network, they might hear things (truth) that they don’t want to hear.
And why does everyone take a “right” or “left” approach these days? You’re right - it didn’t use to be that way. It’s very sad when politics is so rampant in the church. One of my favorites is “Morality Matters - Vote Republican.” That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. This is from a website of a christian. I find it very offensive.
Belinda, let me rephrase that for you:
“Chis Matthews scares me. As does Dan Rather. And CNN. Ever notice that folks that regularly listen to these folks and this network are adamant about only listening to them. It’s like if they listen to another network, they might hear things (truth) that they don’t want to hear.”
What truth are you talking about? The “truth” that Dan Rather and CBS came up with that was proven false? Sure, Fox does lean to the right. They are ONE network. One. How many others are out there?and just about all of them lean to the left so take your pick.
Oh man… the things we “debate” over must truly be laughable to God above. Either that or so so sad… either way, could we rise above this and move towards Jesus together… from both sides of the aisle?
Tim, I’m a bit stumped by you. On the one hand, you say that the sacred and the secular should be kept totally separate. It’s how you justified torture and why you said the government (”govco,” you called it) has no place in “charity” on that thread the other day. But then here you selectively decide that in SOME cases, you expect “Christian values” out of people on the secular side–praising Rush because he’s theoretically pro-life (except when it comes to war, of course, or capital punishment, or the poor, or….) and then slamming Katie Couric because she’s “pro CHOICE.”
So what’s your story? It looks like you’re merely justifying your own biases by selectively decrying “immorality” when you disagree with somebody’s politics and saying “it’s totally separate” when your folks violate ethical standards (for example, Rush’s drug use, cheating on his various wives, illegally tampering with prescriptions, etc.). I’m sorry to be so confrontational here, but I’m tired of seeing the pretense of moral indignation that keeps masquerading as theological or ethical concern in these threads. So what do you really believe? I just want you to be honest about when you’re applying a standard and when you’re willing to let it slide. And, by the way, I’d also like to suggest that a double-standard is no standard at all.
And what Belinda wrote is true: according to a non-partisan study by the University of Maryland, those who got their news from Fox were more than 3 times more likely (80% of viewers vs. 23% in the most extreme example) to hold inaccurate perceptions of the facts of the Iraq war (for example, they were more likely to believe that weapons of mass destruction had been found; they haven’t according to all of the military commanders) than those who got their news from other media sources. Fox viewers were twice as likely to hold inaccurate perceptions as those who got their news from CNN. The people with the most accurate perception? Those who got their news from NPR/PBS. You can check out the study yourself at .
Why should this difference in perceptions occur? Could it be that Fox really isn’t delivering the same quality of information as the other sources? Nah. That can’t be it. It must be some liberal conspiracy…
Do you want to know the real story? CNN, Katie Couric, and the rest are generally “moderate” (though understandably next to Fox they look “far left”). They may not hold the same moral values as all or even as most Christians. But Tim, you said that we needed to keep those things separate on that other thread. So I’ll hold you at your word on that. If you want to keep Jesus out of it and just talk politics, let’s do that: Rush is not a moderate. He’s on the right (though not the traditional right since he’s unconcerned about spiralling deficits, mismanagement of government resources, the rule of law, and most of the other issues held by traditional conservatives; technically, he’s a “neo-conservative,” but my guess is he’d throw that over too if it didn’t make him cash). And he does have a counterpart on the left–but it’s not Dan Rather. It’s Michael Moore.
(And, by the way, to all of you suggesting people should just listen to Rush for 6 weeks to “get him,” I’d like to make a counterproposal: I’ll do it if you’ll watch all of Michael Moore’s movies one-per-day for that same period–though my guess is that neither one of us will really benefit from that since listening to people at the outer poles of an argument rarely brings people toward consensus in the middle).
But here’s an even better proposal: Unlike some here, I don’t think you can keep the sacred and secular separate. I believe that Jesus is lord of all things–including our politics, our government, our structures of justice, our culture… everything. So I’m not content to apply standards only sporadically. Here’s what I propose: Let’s situate Rush and Michael (and Katie and Dan and Fox News and CNN and the Republicans and the Democrats and everything else) next to the witness of Jesus for 6 weeks and see how THEY hold up. If they don’t equally make us more sensitive to the poor and disenfranchised (remember what James identifies as “true religion”), more drawn to Christ’s model, more able to recognize our neighbors among those we despise, more loving of our enemies, then maybe we should try something else. Maybe instead of using Jesus to justify our particular biases we should situate our biases next to the model of Jesus and see what happens…
Rush and Michael Moore share a lot of the same gifts. Both are great at making comfortable people feel more comfortable. And both are great at making people more aware of distinctions and differences and less certain of their opponents’ shared humanity. Jesus wasn’t so good at either one of those things… But he was good at calling people–some to his grace and mercy, some to account for their hypocrisy, and all to a radical reenvisioning of themselves through lives of service and sacrifice. Sometimes his message was beautiful; other times, it was pretty hard to take. He told people what they needed to hear (as opposed to what they wanted to hear). He calls us to do the same.
For some reason, the web address got stripped out of my last message. Check out the media study at
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
JT, I am all for moving towards Jesus but is there anything wrong with reasonable and sensible debate? I’m not talking about Nancy Grace debate where you get shouted down (sorry..screamed down) and belittled and not allowed to speak (O’Reilly debate).
Google is the best search engine
Is Jesus pro-life or pro-choice? I read he said to choose life. Hmmm….
I love Ann Coulter. Someone said it brilliantly, ‘don’t mistake Ann’s sarcasm for hatred.’
PS Whoever votes pro-choice has the blood of Gods’ children on their hands.